Obama Grows a Pair - Finally!

[Nbadan]

Seriously, forget bi-partisanship, you can't have bi-partisanship with obstructionists who care more about their own political motives than doing something, which, right or wrong, is being done for the good of the nation....

Obama takes one step forward, will he take two steps back?

[jack sommerset]

Obama the liar at work again.

[jack sommerset]

This is just an expansion of the blame Bush campaign. Now it's blame the republicans.

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro has done nothing but try to pull the US out of the ditch.

Americans would be really stupid to hand the keys back to the willfully incompetent, destructive seditious Repugs.

[angrydude]

Obama has just driven us further into the ditch.

[boutons_deux]

"Obama has just driven us further into the ditch."

You Lie

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama the liar at work again.

the economy is coming back jack....

[jack sommerset]

the economy is coming back jack....

Shut the up, stupid.

[boutons_deux]

This men-to-people change, which I don't support, is great pushback against TX SBOE removing Jefferson from American history (they're probably more pissed off at his miscegnation than his separation of church and state, but they wouldn't want to show their white supremacist, racist hand), and all the insane "historical" revisionism and bull from tea party front "men" BecKKK and pitbull .

[D-Wade #3]

Shut the up, stupid.

You can't provide a reason to support your argument about the economy not coming back, you just don't wanna give Obama credit

[jack sommerset]

You can't provide a reason to support your argument about the economy not coming back, you just don't wanna give Obama credit

No. I want to tell George he is one dumb mother er.


For you, our unemployment is up to nearly 10 percent even though the great one promised it would not go above 8 percent if we pass his stimulus bill that had over 8,000 earmarks in it. The liar said he would not have any earmarks. Americans will fix the economy, not Obama.

[D-Wade #3]

No. I want to tell George he is one dumb mother er.


For you, our unemployment is up to nearly 10 percent even though the great one promised it would not go above 8 percent if we pass his stimulus bill that had over 8,000 earmarks in it. The liar said he would not have any earmarks. Americans will fix the economy, not Obama.

Bush ed up this country so bad, it's a miracle that we aren't in a depression now. 500,000 jobs were being lost per month, just shut the up and don't let people know just how ignorant you are

[Ignignokt]

Bush ed up this country so bad, it's a miracle that we aren't in a depression now. 500,000 jobs were being lost per month, just shut the up and don't let people know just how ignorant you are

Glass Steagall
CRA
Fannie Mae

all enacted by Bush, meanwhile the Democrats were in Power in both chambers since 2006.

[jack sommerset]

Bush ed up this country so bad, it's a miracle that we aren't in a depression now. 500,000 jobs were being lost per month, just shut the up and don't let people know just how ignorant you are

With Obama's spending you might get that depression you want so bad, loser!

[George Gervin's Afro]

No. I want to tell George he is one dumb mother er.


For you, our unemployment is up to nearly 10 percent even though the great one promised it would not go above 8 percent if we pass his stimulus bill that had over 8,000 earmarks in it. The liar said he would not have any earmarks. Americans will fix the economy, not Obama.

that's our jack, fumbling and stumbling all over the place. he hates liars, I mean he likes liars, i mean hates obama the liar but will support another liar as long as it's not obama..

[George Gervin's Afro]

With Obama's spending you might get that depression you want so bad, loser!

the economy is growing again dummy... keep praying for that depression..

[jack sommerset]

that's our jack, fumbling and stumbling all over the place. he hates liars, I mean he likes liars, i mean hates obama the liar but will support another liar as long as it's not obama..

You make zero sense. You're a ing nutjob.

[Spurminator]

Yes! Finally we have a President who talks like cable news watchers! Way to man up and... say stuff! This could be the partisan rhetoric that finally puts this nation back on course.

Hooray! Balls!

[EmptyMan]

with obstructionists who care more about their own political motives than doing something, which, right or wrong, is being done for the good of the nation

LOL son, what's BamBam doing about illegal immigration? Oh right, not a gotdamn thing. Polls can't take it before nov. elections.

[Winehole23]

Yes! Finally we have a President who talks like cable news watchers! Way to man up and... say stuff! This could be the partisan rhetoric that finally puts this nation back on course.

Hooray! Balls!

Spot on.

[EVAY]

Glass Steagall
CRA
Fannie Mae

all enacted by Bush, meanwhile the Democrats were in Power in both chambers since 2006.

Actually, wasn't the Glass-Steagall Act overturned in 1999? Clinton signed the overturn, but wasn't the GOP in charge of both Houses of Congress between 1994 and 2006? Wasn't that enough time to straighten out Fannie and Freddie? For the last six of those years there was a GOP congress and a GOP administration. Still not enough time to straighten out Fannie and Freddie?

When will we ever get all of our pointed heads around the fact that the economic disaster of 2007-2008 is a bipartisan accomplishment of the first order, an event that even best economic minds of the nation pretty much missed? ( see Greenspan, Alan)

[admiralsnackbar]

No. I want to tell George he is one dumb mother er.


For you, our unemployment is up to nearly 10 percent even though the great one promised it would not go above 8 percent if we pass his stimulus bill that had over 8,000 earmarks in it. The liar said he would not have any earmarks. Americans will fix the economy, not Obama.

Repairing The Job Machine

More jobs might be created this year than during George W. Bush's presidency.

by Ronald Brownstein


If the economy produces jobs over the next eight months at the same pace as it did over the past four months, the nation will have created more jobs in 2010 alone than it did over the entire eight years of George W. Bush's presidency.
That comparison comes with many footnotes and asterisks. But it shows how the economic debate between the parties could look very different over time -- perhaps by November, more likely by 2012. More important, the comparison underscores the urgency of repairing an American job-creation machine that was sputtering long before the 2008 financial meltdown.
First, the numbers: From February 2001, Bush's first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, total U.S. nonfarm employment grew from 132.5 million to 133.5 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's an increase, obviously, of just 1 million. From January through April of this year, the economy created 573,000 jobs. Over a full year, that projects to 1.72 million jobs. Job-creation numbers are notoriously volatile, so the actual result could run above or below that estimate. But Obama administration economists are increasingly optimistic that job growth this year will exceed expectations. Few of them will be surprised if more jobs are created in 2010 than over Bush's two terms.
Now the principal footnote: To compare job growth in 2010 with Bush's record ignores the nearly 4 million jobs lost in Obama's first year, during the freefall that began in Bush's final months. That's like ignoring a meteor strike. Over time, voters are likely to judge Obama by his degree of success in eliminating that deficit and reducing unemployment. Still, if the economy this year produces more than 1 million jobs -- or, conceivably, more than 2 million -- that will give Democrats more ammunition to argue that their agenda has started to turn the tide.
The real point of looking again at Bush's record is to underscore how few jobs the economy was creating even before the 2008 collapse. Bush's tally of 1 million jobs was much less than the economy had generated during any other two-term stretch since World War II: Dwight Eisenhower produced nearly 4 million, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (together) almost 16 million, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (together) 11 million, Ronald Reagan 16 million, and Bill Clinton more than 22 million.
Bush's total, of course, was suppressed by the slowdown he inherited from Clinton and the full-scale meltdown during his last year. But even during the recovery in between, job growth lagged. In only eight of Bush's 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.
This record suggests two conclusions. One is that there's no evidence to support the argument from congressional Republicans that tax cuts offer a silver bullet for expanding employment. Job growth boomed after Reagan cut taxes, but expanded even faster after Clinton raised them, and then faltered despite two massive tax cuts under Bush. If tax rates are the critical factor in that record, the relationship is well disguised.
The other point is that even optimistic scenarios suggest a sustained period of uncomfortably high joblessness. The economy lost more jobs during 2008 and 2009 than it gained throughout the Bush recovery. Obama administration officials see positive signs of the economy's reaching what one called "escape velocity," but acknowledge a long tough climb, even under relatively hopeful projections, to recreate the jobs vaporized by the recession. It is possible that the economy could experience a full decade without any sustained period matching the rapid job growth of the late 1990s. Obama himself has privately described long-term unemployment as his greatest domestic concern.
Although the immediate jobs picture is clearly brightening, lasting surges in U.S. job growth usually have followed technological breakthroughs (the personal computer, the Internet) or expanded access to education (mass primary schooling in the late 19th century and increased access to college after World War II). Obama is betting heavily on both fronts, with big increases in federal investment in education and new technologies, such as alternative energy. But the engine that will propel the next great burst of American job creation has yet to be discovered.



http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmag...id=site_search

[z0sa]

Repairing The Job Machine

More jobs might be created this year than during George W. Bush's presidency.

by Ronald Brownstein


If the economy produces jobs over the next eight months at the same pace as it did over the past four months, the nation will have created more jobs in 2010 alone than it did over the entire eight years of George W. Bush's presidency.
That comparison comes with many footnotes and asterisks. But it shows how the economic debate between the parties could look very different over time -- perhaps by November, more likely by 2012. More important, the comparison underscores the urgency of repairing an American job-creation machine that was sputtering long before the 2008 financial meltdown.
First, the numbers: From February 2001, Bush's first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, total U.S. nonfarm employment grew from 132.5 million to 133.5 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's an increase, obviously, of just 1 million. From January through April of this year, the economy created 573,000 jobs. Over a full year, that projects to 1.72 million jobs. Job-creation numbers are notoriously volatile, so the actual result could run above or below that estimate. But Obama administration economists are increasingly optimistic that job growth this year will exceed expectations. Few of them will be surprised if more jobs are created in 2010 than over Bush's two terms.
Now the principal footnote: To compare job growth in 2010 with Bush's record ignores the nearly 4 million jobs lost in Obama's first year, during the freefall that began in Bush's final months. That's like ignoring a meteor strike. Over time, voters are likely to judge Obama by his degree of success in eliminating that deficit and reducing unemployment. Still, if the economy this year produces more than 1 million jobs -- or, conceivably, more than 2 million -- that will give Democrats more ammunition to argue that their agenda has started to turn the tide.
The real point of looking again at Bush's record is to underscore how few jobs the economy was creating even before the 2008 collapse. Bush's tally of 1 million jobs was much less than the economy had generated during any other two-term stretch since World War II: Dwight Eisenhower produced nearly 4 million, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (together) almost 16 million, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (together) 11 million, Ronald Reagan 16 million, and Bill Clinton more than 22 million.
Bush's total, of course, was suppressed by the slowdown he inherited from Clinton and the full-scale meltdown during his last year. But even during the recovery in between, job growth lagged. In only eight of Bush's 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.
This record suggests two conclusions. One is that there's no evidence to support the argument from congressional Republicans that tax cuts offer a silver bullet for expanding employment. Job growth boomed after Reagan cut taxes, but expanded even faster after Clinton raised them, and then faltered despite two massive tax cuts under Bush. If tax rates are the critical factor in that record, the relationship is well disguised.
The other point is that even optimistic scenarios suggest a sustained period of uncomfortably high joblessness. The economy lost more jobs during 2008 and 2009 than it gained throughout the Bush recovery. Obama administration officials see positive signs of the economy's reaching what one called "escape velocity," but acknowledge a long tough climb, even under relatively hopeful projections, to recreate the jobs vaporized by the recession. It is possible that the economy could experience a full decade without any sustained period matching the rapid job growth of the late 1990s. Obama himself has privately described long-term unemployment as his greatest domestic concern.
Although the immediate jobs picture is clearly brightening, lasting surges in U.S. job growth usually have followed technological breakthroughs (the personal computer, the Internet) or expanded access to education (mass primary schooling in the late 19th century and increased access to college after World War II). Obama is betting heavily on both fronts, with big increases in federal investment in education and new technologies, such as alternative energy. But the engine that will propel the next great burst of American job creation has yet to be discovered.



http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmag...id=site_search

Means absolutely nothing for the reason bolded. "USA" (I agree it's mostly Americans like me and you meeting the challenges of the recession and doing what they have to do to regain their standard of living) is basically restoring jobs Americans once had unless you want to get technical about the actual jobs themselves. I bet laid-off Americans are making considerably less money in their new jobs, as well, at least for the most part.

[EVAY]

Repairing The Job Machine

More jobs might be created this year than during George W. Bush's presidency.

by Ronald Brownstein


If the economy produces jobs over the next eight months at the same pace as it did over the past four months, the nation will have created more jobs in 2010 alone than it did over the entire eight years of George W. Bush's presidency.
That comparison comes with many footnotes and asterisks. But it shows how the economic debate between the parties could look very different over time -- perhaps by November, more likely by 2012. More important, the comparison underscores the urgency of repairing an American job-creation machine that was sputtering long before the 2008 financial meltdown.
First, the numbers: From February 2001, Bush's first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, total U.S. nonfarm employment grew from 132.5 million to 133.5 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's an increase, obviously, of just 1 million. From January through April of this year, the economy created 573,000 jobs. Over a full year, that projects to 1.72 million jobs. Job-creation numbers are notoriously volatile, so the actual result could run above or below that estimate. But Obama administration economists are increasingly optimistic that job growth this year will exceed expectations. Few of them will be surprised if more jobs are created in 2010 than over Bush's two terms.
Now the principal footnote: To compare job growth in 2010 with Bush's record ignores the nearly 4 million jobs lost in Obama's first year, during the freefall that began in Bush's final months. That's like ignoring a meteor strike. Over time, voters are likely to judge Obama by his degree of success in eliminating that deficit and reducing unemployment. Still, if the economy this year produces more than 1 million jobs -- or, conceivably, more than 2 million -- that will give Democrats more ammunition to argue that their agenda has started to turn the tide.
The real point of looking again at Bush's record is to underscore how few jobs the economy was creating even before the 2008 collapse. Bush's tally of 1 million jobs was much less than the economy had generated during any other two-term stretch since World War II: Dwight Eisenhower produced nearly 4 million, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (together) almost 16 million, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (together) 11 million, Ronald Reagan 16 million, and Bill Clinton more than 22 million.
Bush's total, of course, was suppressed by the slowdown he inherited from Clinton and the full-scale meltdown during his last year. But even during the recovery in between, job growth lagged. In only eight of Bush's 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.
This record suggests two conclusions. One is that there's no evidence to support the argument from congressional Republicans that tax cuts offer a silver bullet for expanding employment. Job growth boomed after Reagan cut taxes, but expanded even faster after Clinton raised them, and then faltered despite two massive tax cuts under Bush. If tax rates are the critical factor in that record, the relationship is well disguised.
The other point is that even optimistic scenarios suggest a sustained period of uncomfortably high joblessness. The economy lost more jobs during 2008 and 2009 than it gained throughout the Bush recovery. Obama administration officials see positive signs of the economy's reaching what one called "escape velocity," but acknowledge a long tough climb, even under relatively hopeful projections, to recreate the jobs vaporized by the recession. It is possible that the economy could experience a full decade without any sustained period matching the rapid job growth of the late 1990s. Obama himself has privately described long-term unemployment as his greatest domestic concern.
Although the immediate jobs picture is clearly brightening, lasting surges in U.S. job growth usually have followed technological breakthroughs (the personal computer, the Internet) or expanded access to education (mass primary schooling in the late 19th century and increased access to college after World War II). Obama is betting heavily on both fronts, with big increases in federal investment in education and new technologies, such as alternative energy. But the engine that will propel the next great burst of American job creation has yet to be discovered.



http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmag...id=site_search

WOW!

I had no idea of either of the significant pieces of information in this article, i.e., that Bush's two terms produced only 1 million jobs, or that the country is on pace to produce more than that in this year.

The article did a good job, I thought, of putting the data in context so as to not overstate either side of the argument. Still, with this kind of information, it does seem to me that Democrats are reaching historical levels of inep ude in not getting the message out, and in allowing the Republican Party to sell their version of the economy to the voters.

If the Dems don't communicate effectively, they have no one but themselves to blame when/if they lose control of congress.

[z0sa]

I had no idea of either of the significant pieces of information in this article, i.e., that Bush's two terms produced only 1 million jobs, or that the country is on pace to produce more than that in this year.

It shouldn't be surprising, since we lost so many jobs.